Ten reasons for supporting Project Cameron

David Cameron's change agenda has entered its most testing period.  The opinion polls have not budged as much as his modernising followers had hoped.  Andrew Rawnsley described the problem in yesterday's Observer:

"David Cameron is a pilot who can't get his undercarriage up. His leadership of the Tory party left the runway with impressive speed, considerable élan and a strong following wind from a friendly media. But now he is struggling to gain any altitude."

David Cameron's great problem is that he is struggling to substantiate his change message.  He talks about his passion for the environment but, with the reports of the policy groups still more than twelve months away, he cannot offer any bold policy changes that substantiate his commitment.  There is no great environmentally-friendly tax reform or a big push towards a new, cleaner way of meeting Britain's energy needs.  On social justice there is no equivalent of Mrs Thatcher's sale of council homes.  On international development there is policy silence.

In order to bridge the gap between now and policy announcements we are presented with gesture politics.  There's Mr Cameron's forthcoming factfinding trip to Norway and there was Saturday's well-meant but cringe-making 'be the change' leaflet.  Mr Rawnsley thinks that Mr Cameron is vulnerable to a right-wing storming of the pilot's cabin.  Given the Tory parliamentary party's Messiah Complex you can never rule out an attempted putsch but Mr Cameron faces no credible threat to his leadership.  There are many good reasons for Tory activists to keep faith with the leader who won such an overwhelming mandate only four months ago.

I am disappointed with David Cameron's failure to consistently combine core Tory beliefs with his new priorities (through the 'politics of and') but listed below are ten reasons why the Tory leader continues to enjoy the confidence of ConservativeHome.com:

1. Police reform: The police remain one of the Britain's most unreformed public services.  There is a 'Nixon in China' element to why the Tories are best placed to shake up the police in the same way that Labour are best placed to undertake welfare reform.  David Cameron's appointment of Nick Herbert MP to the shadow police reform post suggests a seriousness of intent in this policy area.
2. Prisons: As noted only yesterday, on prisons Mr Cameron is following the 'politics of and'.  He is combining Michael Howard's 'prison works' policy - which was so successful in reducing crime in the 1990s - with a compassionate and prudent investment in offender rehabilitation.
3. Social justice: Anyone who was in Manchester and witnessed Friday's panel on social entrepreneurs would have been impressed with Mr Cameron's personal commitment to this subject.  The most encouraging aspect of the commitment is that it is authentically conservative.  Under IDS the social justice policy group is not looking to further fatten the dependency-inducing welfare state but to emphasise economic independence, stronger families and a freer, more innovative voluntary sector.
4. Support for marriage: As part of 'getting nasty' with the Tory Party, Michael Portillo wants David Cameron to drop his pro-marriage commitment but you can't deliver social justice if you don't strengthen the family.  The family provides more welfare in more holistic ways than the state could ever hope to. ConservativeHomers enjoyed a good discussion of marriage a couple of weeks ago and gravitated towards some practical ways of supporting society's most important institution of liberty.
5. No to ID cards: Saturday's Manchester speech made it clear that David Cameron is determined to abolish Labour's "plastic poll tax".  Many Conservatives who have no principled objections to ID cards have been converted to opposition by doubts over the cards' likely cost and efficacy.
6. Standing up to big business: Conservatives should be on the side of competitive markets - not a corporate state where big businesses collude with the government to create barriers to entry through regulations.  Eurosceptic Conservatives should remember that before the transformational work of Business for Sterling, FTSE-100 companies led the charge towards eurozone membership.  Small firms - and big firms with devolved internal structures - are the engine of the economy.
7. Tax cuts for enterprise: Last week George Osborne noted that business deserved tax relief if Britain plc is to stay competitive in the world economy.
8. EPP exit: A swifter exit would have prevented the Clarke-Jackson-Beazleyites digging into the pro-EPP trenches but this leadership contest pledge is a pointer towards Mr Cameron's Euroscepticism.
9. An open primary election for London Mayor: Done properly (not rushed) this open primary election could revitalise interest in the London party and be a model for a party that regularly invites the British people to help shape the Conservative agenda.  A medium-term aim of Francis Maude should be to harness the internet revolution and deliver a scale of public participation in the Conservative Party that will make it become the true political arm of the British people.
10. National security: This certainly won't please the more multilateral ConservativeHome readers but in William Hague and Liam Fox, David Cameron has appointed hawks to the vital international portfolios.  Liam Fox has rightly said that the military option must be kept open with regard to Iran.  William Hague's faith in a UN solution to the problems of Darfur is worrying but we must hope that this faith will quickly pass with a more sobre analysis of the ties that bind certain Security Council members to Khartoum's odious regime.

Comments

[James Maskell]

2 sounds like a half thought out fudge that could send signals to the public that we are still on the side of criminals.

4- Single mothers,unmarried couples and single people are going to find themselves disadvantaged.

5-Its not exactly like that is it? We allowed the Bill through. We accepted a compromise and thats all that matters. We can say we'll get rid of them if elected but the fact remains, we voted for this.

6-My concern is how exactly we plan on going about this...big business already has what it wants (a stranglehold on the market). The Conservatuves need to propose some extremely radical policies on this issue and I doubt very strongly Cameron has the cahones to drive the hard change through.

7-I half agree with this. Business cuts are required to free business but I would much better prefer a cut in personal taxes before it.

8-Im in a minority on this issue but I think we should stay in the EPP. I expect a hail of questions...

9-As many will know here, I dont like the idea of Open primaries due to the possibility of the system being manipulated by non Conservatives. Im not going to go back over that argument but Im very sure of my position here.

10- Part of it I disagree with. Im no hawk and opposed the War in Iraq on the grounds of false case for war. I think we should pull out as its getting clearly out of hand and the risk to our soldiers grows each day if the news reports are right. I think the policies on Darfur and Iran are OK but a tightening on Sudan would be welcome, short of sending troops in. Our armed forces are too stretched and being cut down from the inside (thanks Labour).

[Selsdon Man]

You have over-filled your kettle!

[michael]

I don't like the 'politics and' idea - it's a recipie for mixed messages and Cameron would be charged with being inconsistent.

I think the gap between between now and policy should be filled with a narrative.

Cameron should paint a picture of the type of society he wants to create - John Major did this very well in his early days when he talked of a society at ease with itself.

[James Maskell]

Ill donate some blood to balance it or maybe Ill pick up two pieces of litter to make up for it, Selsdon!

[Christina]

One problem for the And Theory is that understanding approaches tend to be soft approaches in most cases.

Consider recruit training in the Army, Navy and RAF.

These Armed Forces have an understanding approach in transforming civilian volunteers into soldiers, sailors and airmen/women. It isn't soft though, it is quite hard. I'm former RAF.

I'd like to see the same kind of thing for young offenders in particular. An understanding but challenging approach which aims to transform character.

Also, many young offenders have not had good role models in life, something like recruit training would provide them in the form of specialist prison officers who are more like drill instructors and outward bound instructors.

The ideal personnel would be former Armed Forces personnel, so it would be good for the Forces too.

I think that many young offenders are weak, rather than strong. That is what lack of discipline does. They are too weak to resist peers who challenge them to break the law.

[passing leftie]

Cameron's leadership makes me laugh. You lot really didn't know what you were letting yourselves in for here. And you can't even keep it together for six months. Where is the legendary steel and loyalty of the Tories, uniting behind their leader?

1 He's bang on here. Perhaps he could start with prosecuting police officers who let people die in custody, or beat the crap out of people for no reason. The funniest thing last year was to see countryside alliance people expressing suprise that the police would whack them them for no good reason - something other protesters have experienced for years.

2 Isn't this "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"? No change their then. Crime is a product of complex social factors, and it is the fear of being caught which is the strongest deterrent.

The British Crime Survey, generally recognised as the most accurate source of crime data suggests crime has been faliing since 1995.

3 Yes, we need social assistance with a side order of moralistic religious junk to make it palletable. We really need to subsidize evangelical time-share salesmen and Islamic fundamentalists.

4 Yes, marriage is superior to all other family stucture. If you are a single mother, or living in sin, screw you. We'll disadvantge your children too. Because after all those people already married need the most help, not those other sinful groups.

5 Get rid of ID cards... try not voting for them in the first place. But he has promised to get rid of them, I'll give him that.

6 Stand up to big business...

7 ...by giving them tax cuts. Nice one. The wealth gap is growing year on year, and you want to subsidize these scumbags. If you are going to cut taxes, how about some cash for people earning a pittance?

8 Leave the center right to do what? Sulk in a corner. If you hate the EU so much why bother sending MEPs to snout in the trough? If it's such a gravy train, let's see those MEPs not claiming their full allowances.

9 They will charge people to vote. That'll stop people from other parties from being bothered with this - as if they would give a monkey's anyway. Unless Ken is undemocratically deposed, he will win against anyone you can put up.

10 A great alternative to labour. Yet another bunch of lapdogs clinging on to American coat tails. At the very least, I would hope that a nationalistic party should show some pride.

[TimC]

"with the reports of the policy groups still more than twelve months away, he cannot offer any bold policy changes that substantiate his commitment"

One problem that we face is that if we come up with a truly innovative approach, nuLab will have no problem implementing it as their own policy, even if it is something that they would never have been able to think of themselves.

This leaves a dilemna between appearing light on detailed policy and timing announcements so that they don't get stolen.

[James Maskell]

Interesting point about the Policy Groups. Because of their creation the Conservative Policy Forum has been knocked down the policy creation priority list. Does the CPF have any prominence in Conservative policy creation anymore? Anyone here involved with the CPF have any views on this?

[James Cleverly]

It was very kind of Passing Leftie to remind us why we have to work so hard to get wooley thinkers like him/her out of government.

[Sean Fear]

Good to see Dave Spart contributing towards this message board. It's always helpful to be reminded why one needs to work to return a Conservative government.

Those are good points Editor. While I've been critical of quite a lot of what the Party leadership has done, it's important to remember that they have got several important things right, as well.

[Chad]

Hi TimC,

I agree, but isn't this dilemma more a flaw of the strategy?

If all you are doing is proposing a mixed-bag of policies then Labour can pinch the ones it likes.

However, if you instead create a small set of core and clearly definable values and ensure your policy announcements comply with these, then the public will begin to learn what you stand for.

With a clear set of definable values, the public will not just be able to understand why you have proposed a policy but it will also be able to judge for itself how future policies comply or don't comply with your core values.

These core values should not be a vague mess like B2L that it would be difficult for anyone from any party to object to. They need to be distinctive otherwise why would the public listen to you in the first place? They don't need me-too clones of other parties.

When you are driven by a core set of values and the public understand this, then they will also be able to judge for themselves when the opposition seeks to half-inch your bright ideas.

[James Maskell]

Indeed James. By the way, hows the campaign going?

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Having read these boards quite a lot I was under the impression that Cameron had no policies. I knew I must have been mistaken.

[Chris Palmer]

Surely those Conservatives who don't necessarily agree with everything that David Cameron says or does would acknowledge that a Conservative Government would be far more favourable than any Labour Government.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Not if there's a monster raving UKipper they can vote for.

[Chad]

Indeed Chris. But first we need a conservative opposition.

No-one is going to swap new labour for blue labour.

[passing leftie]

It was very kind of Passing Leftie to remind us why we have to work so hard to get wooley thinkers like him/her out of government.

My pleasure, but I am insulted that you think the New Labour apparatchiks have genuine left wing principles. I despise this authoritarian regime.

But the Tory leadership appears to be turning into the same amorphous creature as the New Labour clique. I'm suprised you can put up with it. At least you knew where you stood with Thatcher.

[James Cleverly]

James M,

The campaign is going well, new young members coming out of the woodwork and we have the hardest working set of council candidates that I have ever met.

Bringing this post back on topic, I feel that we should be selling our core beliefs at this point and then adding the policy detail later. “Policy lite” is OK as long as people can see where we are going and why.

If we push "Smaller, local and accountable" it will help people to understand why we stand up to big business, support small and start up businesses, oppose police mergers, oppose regional qangos etc.

If we push “Responsibility and Duty” rather than just thinking about rights, people will understand or support for social entrepreneurs, support for the family, reduction in the size of the state.

[Richard Bailey]

This "failure to gain altitude" rubbish is purely the creation of an ephemeral media with the attention span of a 3 year old.
They have nothing to write about, so they write about the fact that they have nothing to write about and come up with all sorts of ludicrous conclusions.

How sad is it that in 2006, after 200 years of moving with the times, we as a Party have become so fat and arrogant that we resist the changes necessary to rejoin the nation.

It should be perfectly obvious to all that the Party and the previous policies are unelectable and we have to do something about it. Cameron is right to tackle the image of the Party first.

The duty of those to the right of the Party is to get behind the agenda for change so that the Party gets back to power. Then they can make their case for tax cuts etc.

[Damian]

far more favourable

To whom?

As for the "policies" above, scarcely any amounts to anything like a policy. At most these are vague me-tooist (same as that Tony bloke) aspirations.

And as for the notion of "social justice" - well, as Hayek (whom we seem to be genuflecting to at No. 6) said:

As a weasel is alleged to be able to empty an egg without leaving a visible sign, so can these words deprive of content any term to which they are prefixed while seemingly leaving them untouched. [...] But while the rule of law and the market are, at the start, fairly clear concepts, the attribute "social" empties them of any clear meaning

In fact, this bit is better, because more specific:

Only human actions can be just or unjust; the task of government cannot be to create just conditions, but only to prevent unujust actions. To describe as just or unjust a state of affairs that men have not and could not have created, and to which most of them owe their existence, is giving expression to fantasies in socialist baby language.

I don't suppose the Boy-King's use of the term reflects any specifically socialist belief. I doubt he has any particular beliefs at all - beyond a belief that he, a man totally unfitted for the position, should be prime minister. But "baby language" is about right.

Baby-talk from the Boy-King.

[Chad]

With Cameron so passionate about the environment, do you think the Tories would do better with Davis at the helm and Cameron as the environment minister, and generally media-friendly senior minister?

That way you could have a leader who is protecting your core vote, and cleary a conservative (small c) with a young buck who is reaching out to the libcons.

Davis is the core, and Cameron is the 'and' to quote the Editor's preferred approach.

I voted for Cameron,and he is needed in the party, but I now regret choosing him for the leadership role over Davis.

When I saw the big word "CHANGE" behind Cameron at the conference it did indeed make me think of change, but maybe not the change he would like.

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

[Sean Fear]

"we as a Party have become so fat and arrogant that we resist the changes necessary to rejoin the nation"

As far as I'm concerned, I'm part of the nation.

The problem with the "change agenda" (as Conservative modernisers describe it) is that it is intended to appeal to an incredibly narrow section of the population (broadly speaking, people living in N1, NW1, SW1 and W8 and their equivalents in some large provincial cities). This is a much smaller social group than either core Conservatives, or the average floating voter.

[Chad]

It would be interesting to have an almost "sliding doors" look back on what could have been different since December.

Davis in charge, Cameron pushing his passion for the environment (perhaps duoty leader and environment minister) and Fox at the FO, delivering his EPP pledge.

Would that be a better foundation for the future?

[True Blue]

Here are the actual policy commitments I can find. If anyone knows of any others, please add them. It would be great if our esteemed editor kept a record of these for reference.

Abolish ID cards, fix carbon emissions, raise the pensionable age, share the net proceeds of GDP between the public and private sector, abolish the current early release scheme, reduce business taxation, leave the EPP, change party funding.

[Editor]

This talk is unhelpful, Chad, and, frankly, given your own Imagine Party, you do not have the best interests of the Conservative Party at heart.

David Cameron is the Tory leader and there is no serious appetite in the Conservative Party for that to change. If we changed another leader we'd look absolutely incredible to the public.

What we need to focus on - and that's what this thread is about - is the party's policy agenda and priorities.

[Chris Palmer]

In case anyone was actually interested, here is a link to Chad's Imagine Party website : http://www.imagineparty.org/

[Chris Palmer]

This is a favourite of mine, Chad. I quote from the top of your website: "British political party promoting less politics and more love." Added to that, the interesting sunflower graphics on the website - is this a return to the 60's hippy flowerpower movement?!

[Chad]

:-) I don't think anyone could accuse me of not being transparent Chris. I use my real name etc.

Have you noticed though how many times other conservatives have come out and agreed with me? It's because we are discussing issues to make Britain better, not promoting blind tribalism.

Try to keep on subject please. I am open about who I am and what I believe.

Back to subject:
Do you think the Conservaitve Party would be in a better position with Davis at the helm, deputy Cameron as environment minister and Fox at the FO?

[Chad]

Tim,

Why is it unhelpful? I am not asking anyone to come and join me, I am open about what I believe.

I think the party has made a mistake. I voted for Cameron and accept my share of the blame.

It seems more than fair to ask what would have been different if Davis has been elected, surely?

The thread is about supporting team cameron, so it seems particularly relevant to compare it to the alternative.

[James Maskell]

True Blue...no more grammar schools.

[Derek]

John Lennon has written the party anthem. It sounds a bit too idealistic to me.

[Christina]

"EPP exit: A swifter exit would have prevented the Clarke-Jackson-Beazleyites digging into the pro-EPP trenches but this leadership contest pledge is a pointer towards Mr Cameron's Euroscepticism."

If we had withdrawn earlier, we would not have withdrawn into a new group, we would have had Conservative MEPs who were acting as independents in the EU Parliament.

It is better for the country that time is taken to build a new group first.

If Cameron were replaced as leader, we would be a laughing stock.

I suggest those who prefer Davis or Fox to Cameron, seek to emulate those 2 gentlemen who are not seeking to bring him down, but are working with him to make the Party the next Government.

If you don't have any faith in Cameron, why not have some faith in Davis and Fox? ie they know what they are doing.

[Christina]

PS

Reagan's 11th Commandment, something the progressive conservatives in the USA are keen on.

"Never speak ill of a fellow conservative."

[Paul Kennedy]

"If we changed another leader we'd look absolutely incredible to the public.

What we need to focus on - and that's what this thread is about - is the party's policy agenda and priorities". Editor

Totally agree, except I would suggest changing the word "incredible" to "stupid".

As a new activist and candidate (formerly a Right of Centre Independent) I am desperate for the leadership to come forward with some really meaningful policies and priorities for the country and in so doing, in my opinion, the Conservatives will start to look and sound like a party capable of Government. I am worried that if we are going to have to wait for 18 months or so, our credibility will suffer, and interestingly I think it was Oliver Letwin who has said that if there was a snap election in the meantime, policies would be forthcoming, which to me says a lot.

[Chad]

My point was intended to be constructive. Look at the LibDems, they picked the old hand for the helm, and placed the rising start Huhne into environment.

I just wondered whether a similar approach, with core-vote Davis at the helm with deputy Cameron bringing change and pushing the environment would be more effective.

Better to be a laughing stock now (though I disagree) than to lose the election later and go through all the pain again with lost years and an election behind you.

[True Blue]

Thanks, James.

No more grammar schools goes on the list.

A policy statement, true, but not much of a commitment. Margaret Thatcher approved the closure of more grammar schools than any minister before or since. No one has seriously suggested opening new grammar schools.

[Annabel Herriott]

Chad! You are really the individual versus the collective arnt you!! We have been plagued by it since 1867. It would be so nice to find another way. Try and find an old Daily T column of Bill Deedes. He listed every Tory leader and fate since Disraeli. Mostly dumped, and much good it did us. We will NOT get back into power until we have cleaned out our own furred up tubes. We have started the process. It is a truism that when an organism is being required to change, when that change is not that organism's choice, then it will fight to the death NOT to so change. That is what DC is up against right now. The beauty of it is, that most of the whinging can be done on site, and not on the high street, where it would put off any potential converts.Now just SHUT UP, go and busy yourself with your imaginary party, and leave us modern Tories to get on with the real work. I am reminded of that Mark twain quote if only I could remember it, Of the young man who thought his father knew nothing, but when that young men grew up, he was amazed at how much his father had learnt. I think you are that young man, Chad, and the Tory party the father. A bit vague, open to my being knocked down pronto by you young lads, but tough on me!

[True Blue]

Everyone - give the guy a year or so before trying to tear a strip off him. Show some loyalty, and offer constructive criticism. It's pointless wishing that the leadership contest had gone differently.

The last few leaders have been bad, bad, bad. The populist wing of the party have had their chance and it hasn't worked. For us to win the election, we need polcies that don't frighten the horses, but are clearly different; unity; some horrible error by Labour; a crap economy and a plausible, electable leader.

[Chad]

Chad! You are really the individual versus the collective arnt you!!

:-) Sorry, can't help it Annabel.

I was a meddlesome poor kid who was given the chance to escape my hand-of-cards and better myself and challenge my mind with of a grammar school education.

How many ex-grammar kids from poor backgrounds oppose more grammar schools?

Surely we should be promoting all excellence whether sporting, artistic or academic to help poor kids with a particular skill from excelling.

Of course all kids deserve an excellent education, but we should also think in terms of our nation as a whole and actively allow the best to reach a potential that goes beyond the levels an average kids could achieve even with the best schooling?

These people will be our scientists and doctors of the future who could make discoveries to advance mankind.

[Oberon Houston]

Cameron has made critical errors since being elected and will pay a heavy price for them. He says we need to change, but nothing tangible he has done is consistent with this.

Lets look at his team:

Hague: Well, he may get cheers at conference, but to many of the electorate he is still the guy they would rather jeer. Message: we haven’t changed.

Davis: Campaigned on an agenda that we didn’t need to change and yet now is still there supporting Cameron on his ‘Change Agenda'. People find this completely baffling.

Fox: Another right winger, who promptly jets off to the USA with IDS and Hague et al to confer with Republicans just as their foreign policy adventures take a popularity nose dive into the Iraqi desert. Message: we might even be worse than before.

Then there are the policy makers, now despite the merits of some individuals, they are commonly figures of Thatcherism and the past, and people like IDS who are seen to be active in senior positions on the ‘Change Agenda’ despite all the confusing connotations this conjures up with the electorate ( “mmm, not that type of change” they say) . Message: if we have changed, when you find out what it is you might want to run a mile.

Finally there is our performance in opposition, something the whole party needs to think about, but especially the Westminster MPs. We consistently fail to form an effective and convincing argument and opposition to counter bad Government legislation. This reflects very poorly on us across the board. How can we hope to convince people to elect us into power if we cannot form an effective opposition?

The simple fact is this; our popularity took a jump when people felt that all this had been left behind, but now they are realising that the right are still at the tiller, holding it stronger than ever and presto…we are back to 33%. Do not pass GO, do not get elected.

Gordon Brown may have his worries just now, but we are certainly not one of them.

I (as you may be able to guess) am completely pissed off. What a waste of a golden opportunity.

[Annabel Herriott]

I forgot to mention, I heard Andrew Rawnsley Giving DC the once over at a fringe meeting last October. At the time, I thought he was really out to get him. DC stood up to him, and didnt fall for any of his little traps, so I guess he will be pretty much out to even the score. Wouldnt you, if you were a lefty Journo??

[Paul Kennedy]

"My point was intended to be constructive. Look at the LibDems, they picked the old hand for the helm, and placed the rising start Huhne into environment". Chad

That is true, it was in effect a case of "Young Cardinals choosing an Old Pope", but for that to have been the case in the Conservative elections, the "Old Pope" would have had to have been Ken Clarke, now there is a thought!

[Chad]

Not a pleasant one though Paul....

[Jon Gale]

It would be interesting to have an almost "sliding doors" look back on what could have been different since December.

4 months of Headlines like:

"Did the Tories choose the right one?"
"Tories lurch to the right"
"Another lacklustre speech from Davis"
"Davis seen as 'more boring than Brown' says Poll"
"SAS man fails to escape 33% in poll"

etc.

Only half of which might be true, but the media put DD into the box marked "Hard Right Children Flogger" and he would've spent the next 4 years trying to get his real message out, just as Howard was never able to leave the "something of the night" image behind.

Personally I liked Davis, but what i was seeing (as someone intereted in politics) was so different from what the media reported about him that i realised he was never going to given a chance.

[Annabel Herriott]

Chad!! What has grammar schools, and your deprived background got to do with your Imaginary party and undermining our leader with a year of his election with a considerable grass roots mandate??? I was a battered kid and a battered wife, but I dont whinge about it. I use to experience to be constructive!!

[Paul Kennedy]

"leave us modern Tories to get on with the real work". Annabel

Which is?

[Julian H]

Questioning Cameron's election as Leader is extremely damaging and is merely providing our Passing Leftie friends with ammunition.

We elected Cameron and are doing far better for it. If you're strongly opposed to the Party's position then find a new party. If you're not then get behind the leader and let's start working together to get Tony and Gordon out of power.

[Annabel Herriott]

Paul. The real work is campaigning and all that goes with it. Fundraising, leafleting,etc.etc.
Chad. What has Grammar schools and your deprived upbringing got to do with your Imaginary Party, and undermining our leader of less than a year, elected with a considerable grass roots mandate?? I was a battered kid, and a battered wife, but I dont whinge about it, but use the experience constructively.

[Chad]

Well that is what I have done Annabel. I joined the party to help change, but some of the changes break my own core values, so I had to move away.

but I dont whinge about it. I use to experience to be constructive!!
My mum was too, she ran off to a women's refuge to escape the usual violent alcy father.

You are right Annabel, we get on with it. We don't take sh1t and aren't afraid to fight for what we believe in.

The problem is, those values that were clearly defined on the 'beliefs' page of the Conservative Site before Cameron were elected no longer seem to apply.

I can't be party of any party that supports state funding of political parties. The whole idea is abhorrent to me.

[Chad]

My point on grammar schools though was relevant to my background.

It is so easy for a rich kid who went to a top public school to preach that 'selection' is bad.

Selection is not bad. It enables the best to reach their potential and is a great social mobiliser.

That is what conservatism means to me.

[Annabel Herriott]

Sorry I posted twice! Didnt realise the first had gone, but I meant it twice Chad. We will just have to do more fundraising then wont we?? The difference between you and me is that I shall not mention this facet of my background again, and have never let it influence my attitude to stuff, you come over as doing so. Perhaps a list of your core values will help us to understand the inner Chad, then as it is sunny, and not raining right now, I have 300 leaflets to deliver for the May locals.

[Chad]

Perhaps a list of your core values will help us to understand the inner Chad

This is the only time I will link to my own site, but as you have asked directly,
it has the full list of my core values here

They used to be an almost perfect match (bar the no pref, no prej) with the "old" conservative beliefs.

Good luck with your leafleting though!

[Julian H]

"Selection is not bad. It enables the best to reach their potential and is a great social mobiliser."

I agree. Cameron was compromising so as to help through legislation which will go some way to improving things. Of course, it won't go far enough - pushing it further will be our job in government, and we will not get close to government unless we support Cameron.

[Chris Palmer]

Has David Cameron actually said anything against selection though? Saying no return to Grammar Schools is something completely different to selection.

[Chad]

Julian,

If Cameron:

1: Delivers his EPP pledge
2: Drops all forms of racism in the form of "positive action"
3: Opposes the National ID database.
4: Opposes state funding of political parties.

Then yes, I could support him too. I don't think it is likely though unfortunately.

[Richard]

"Now just SHUT UP, go and busy yourself with your imaginary party, and leave us modern Tories to get on with the real work."

If we happen to believe that Cameron is making a mistake why should we shut up? Last thing I heard freedom of speech was permitted on this website. You are beginning to sound like Jack Stone. I am quite willing to listen to reasoned arguments in favour of Cameron's strategy (which I happen to be broadly supportive of) and I try to balance any negativity with some positive comment and suggestions. But I don't think telling people who disagree with you to "SHUT UP" is the best way to win support.

[Paul Kennedy]

"Paul. The real work is campaigning and all that goes with it. Fundraising, leafleting,etc.etc." Annabel

Excellect Annabel, I could do with you in Appleton, Warrington South, I've got a big Lib Dem majority to try to overturn...... still waiting for my leaflets though!!!

But don't you think that it would be helpful if we also had some real coherent national policies and proposals that we could discuss with the voters to show them how we, the Conservatives, would "improve" (note I avoid using the word "change") their lives.

[James Maskell]

Chris, I think Cameron did make some tough language on grammar schools, though Im not certain. Look back at his early speeches after he was elected...

[Julian H]

1. The withdrawal from EPP is still intended; however, there has to be a greater purpose to it and new relationships with better-suited allies formed. There's no point pulling out if only to stand alone.

2. I see no evidence that that's happening.

3. Is Cameron planning Tory support for the ID cards bill?

4. I believe the suggestion was only part-state-funding with private funding still operating to an albeit limited extent.

[Derek]

The Sunday Business on line had a very interesting article which contrasted Gordon Brown's failings with what they described as David Cameron's inertia. Our problem which the article highlights is that we have to wait until the various review groups report back in 2007, leaving us policy-lite until then.
Here is the web address for the article for those interested.
http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Stories.aspx?StoryID=01287FE0-E2DD-45B4-A2B3-D93BEE2B6175&SectionID=803597D7-4BD5-45D5-BF88-E1AC85BF7FDF&_scoops=true

[Chad]

Hi Julian,
1: We'll wait, and wait and see on this one. But for me, I wait for the delivery.

2: Racism is about preference as much as prejudice.

ICERD (International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) definition racism which is as follows:

“Any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise, on equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, or any other field of public life.”

A-list's with fixed amounts of women, ethnic minorities etc, are themselves sexist and racist. They undermine the very cause and issues you seek to address.

This is centrally-controlled diversity, GM Diversity, not the real thing.

3: Yes, he voted with the government on Id cards to get the database started and has made no pledge to scrap this database. The cards themselves are not the risk, it is the central database.

4: Cameron has proposed state funding on the basis of a price-per-vote. This is not a reward for success, as if the vote falls, the multiple price-per-vote can be increased.

[Paul Kennedy]

"3. Is Cameron planning Tory support for the ID cards bill?" Julian H

God, I hope not. Total nightmare if they do. It is a real opportunity to give Labour a "good kicking", and to highlight to the public what a truly oppressive, underhand and dishonest bunch of charlatans they are.

[Chris Palmer]

"Chris, I think Cameron did make some tough language on grammar schools, though Im not certain. Look back at his early speeches after he was elected..." - James Maskell

Yes, you're right James. I do recall him saying that there would be no return to Grammar schools. However, you can have selection by ability without returning to the "Grammar School" system. That was my point.

[John Hustings]

As far as I'm concerned, Chad, I think it's probably a good thing that the "modernising" wing have their go. But if they crash and burn (I can't see the Tories winning the next election) can we please not blame it all on the "right wing" of the party?

[James Maskell]

OK....erm. I think he said that there should be streaming (not banding) in all subjects rather than in just a number of selected ones. It should be in the big speech he did about schools after being elected.

[Rick]

Let's tread in an area politician-lawyers don't like to mention...............the Judicial System.

The Court "Service" is backward, incompetent and usually requires the public to blow dust off before addressing the staff. The Courts sit from 10 until 4pm on a good day, and have a lunch break.

They wallow in paperwork, run a Small Claims system that lets lawyers make it a mockery whereas in California lawyers are banned and cases are processed within 30 days for $20.

The sheer expense caused by practices long abandoned by trades unions keep lawyers able to milk the 'customers', and to drag out proceedings for months. The unworldliness of judges who have little commercial nous and inability to see the wood for the trees result in shambles like The Bloody Sunday Inquiry and the interminable Jubilee Line Trial, or the numerous Customs & Excise disasters.

It is time we had judges who were a) numerate b) scientifically literate c) commercially aware

That courts work to reduce remand prisoner numbers cell-blocking in the prison system.

There should be a complete review of the Judicial System - Lord Woolf's "Access to Justice" should be revisited and audited to see why lawyers and judges have screwed up the judicial system.

Every major case should have a Budget Officer appointed to keep costs under control.

There is a real abuse going on in the judicial system and it enjoys popular contempt. There is hardly anyone outside the self-regarding clique of lawyers who has either faith in or respect for the English legal system.

You cannot reform the Police without dealing with the legal system and increasing the number of courts to stop the overloading caused by regionalising the Court System.

It is time politicians stopped piecemeal meddling and understood that systems are integrated and must be de-bugged along the process flow if you are not to create more bottlenecks.

[Rick]

Yes, you're right James. I do recall him saying that there would be no return to Grammar schools. However, you can have selection by ability without returning to the "Grammar School" system.

Of course....there's Eton, St Paul's, Harrow, Winchester, Westminster...........then again Grammar Schools were dominant in the North and Public Schools in the South...........funny how the North got shafted when Edward Boyle, Tory Education Secretary started the Comprehensive Disaster.............

or does "Dave" propose to integrate Eton into the State system ?

[James Maskell]

Absolutely Rick. The whole law and order system needs looking at, not just the lawyers and the court part. From bobbys on the beat to the probation service in prisons and the capacity of the prisons, to the courts and to the legislature (including rejecting point blank the Death of Democracy Bill). Many people dont have much faith in the law and order system and the police, certainly not in this part of the country.

[Jon Gale]

Chad,

No offense, but going by your website and the core values you linked to you dont seem like a Tory voter. In fact they seem like typical Lib Dem beliefs. You even describe your Imagine Party as centre-left.

So i have great dificulty believing that these values "used to be an almost perfect match (bar the no pref, no prej) with the "old" conservative beliefs.

[Goldie]

This blog has, unfortunately, become a bit of a cheerleading squad up on top....there has been immense criticism of Project Cameron in the Sunday newspapers but nary a peep here. That's too bad....

You know, clearly the conservative membership was willing to go for the more unconventional, more "modern" candidate because they wanted a WINNER.

But you would have to be insane to think that most Tories agree with Cameron's symbol politics. That leaves RESULTS.

Either he will deliver in May or he will not. I've been prediciting for months now on this blog that he will not. It will be interesting to see how the party will respond, although DC himself has already showed how he will respond: he will blame the *Party* for not changing enough....

It's as pathetic as the rest of the Project...

[Chad]

Hi John,

None taken!

Well if the LibDems ever propose eu-withdrawal then perhaps I'll vote for them (I see pigs flying nearby).

It seems a bit odd to be accused of not being a conservative for being too liberal when "Dave" has made his core drive to be a "liberal conservative."

I believe in:
a: small government (no state funding of political parties or big central national databases, withdrawal from the eu)
b: low tax environment to complete in the global economy
c: selection to faciliate social mobilisation.
d: firm law and order, including respect/boot camps.

That used to be fairly conservative I believe.

[James Maskell]

Used to be Chad, used to be...

[buxtehude]

I'm glad you posted this, Editor. I completely agree with you. Cameroonians who hate the critical tone of some of our comments should realise that we DO want him to win, we do NOT want him replaced, we ARE on his side with most of the 'change agenda', we recognise that he is going to some good new places.

The reason we criticise is because we want him to be better, not that we want him out.

[True Blue]

Chad said:

A-list's with fixed amounts of women, ethnic minorities etc, are themselves sexist and racist. They undermine the very cause and issues you seek to address.

Postive discrimination is a tricky issue. If there is an inherent (institutional) tendency to choose one particular group over another, then the only way to combat it is to ensure that, all other things being equal in the candidates, you ensure that a proportion of members of ethnic minorities.

The same people who think that overcrowding in the entire peopulation is caused by a particular group of people within that population (and I'll give you a clue - that group isn't left-handed people or the ginger-haired) are the same people who get to chose who the candidates are. And behind closed doors, if everything else is equal, they are on average more likely to choose the non-ethnic candidate over the ethnic one. It feels safer.

The idea is that when people get used to a having a decent number of candidates from ethnic minorities, there is no need for positive discrimination. More come forward and more are appointed. It's virtuous circle.

Alternatively, you can wait as the attitudes of the populace change bit by bit until you don't have a problem. This is a glacial process.

[Paul Kennedy]

"Many people dont have much faith in the law and order system and the police, certainly not in this part of the country". James

Not in any part of the country, James.

Rick's earlier post on the Judicial system was "spot on".

[Chad]

No True Blue it misses the point. There is no "right" number of women, disabled, ethnic minority, old Etonian, just the "best" person for the role.

The way to achieve this is locally, giving communities (not associationsa) the chance to select the right person for them, not centrally-managed (something that is becoming to define Cameroonian).

As I have said before, placing a young lady in a grime old bar will not attract more young ladies. You need to change the environment, get the establishment to reflect what they like and they will wander in by themselves.

Let communities get involved in candidate selection. CCO should back off and let diversity emerge naturally.

Postive discrimination is a tricky issue
It's not tricky, it's wrong.

[Future]

I must admit that this site has taken a decided turn for the worse in terms of its tone and comments. What started as a serious contribution to thinking about the challenges of the Conservative Party has descended into a ranting platform. Very disappointing.

[Sean Fear]

That is the theory behind affirmative action programmes True Blue.

In practice though, I can't think of any system of affirmative action which avoids promoting less capable people above more capable people.

Proponents of affirmative action will claim that a system is fair because it achieves equality of outcome as between groups, while ignoring the fact that it unfairly discriminates against individuals.

[Julian H]

As far as I'm aware, Cameron originally supporting the first stage of the ID Cards process was simply him following Michael Howard's request that the Tories support the measure (admittedly Cameron did a lot of sucking up to the Head Teacher but, hey, it worked).

Is Cameron, now in charge himself, not opposing the Bill?

[Rob G]

Julian H: as I have mentioned to Chad before, DC didn't vote for the Bill but David Davis (and about 24 other Conservatives) did.

[Chad]

Hi Rob G, we understand that.

When I say "vote for" I am talking about the Conservatives dropping their opposition to the bill.

The bill was ping-ponging without a threat of the Parliament Act being seriously used until the Tories caved in.

[Christina]

IMO, in his criticisms of racism due to postive discrimination, Chad is failing to take into account people like the lady near Manchester who stated that their local association would not choose a candidate from an ethnic minority.

It isn't a case of local = good

and

National = bad.

They can both be good or bad.

Chad's proposals would let the lady concerned and her association make sure they never have a candidate from an ethnic minority. Cameron's proposals on the other hand, deal with such entrenched positions.

[Goldie]

PS: The Editor is somewhat misguided about the nature of politics. That list of ten gives reasons why one might want to support a GOVERNMENT led by David Cameron. It would be a proper evaluation if David Cameron were PRIME MINISTER....however, we're still in opposition. So our opinions about Police reform, support for marriage and social justice is pretty much irrelevant--political masturbation, if you will, unless we actually become the government.

An opposition should be judged on two criteria: 1) does it want to make people vote for it and 2) does it put the government of the day to the task?

Cameron has moved the Conservative numbers up marginally, but not nearly enough to expect a general election victory. And he has not landed any serious blows on the Government, despite its serious problems.

So far, it's been pretty unimpressive.

[Chad]

Hi Christina,

I am not proposing that associations are given the power to select candidates,but local communities themselves.

I can see why Cameron is frustrated by associations for the reasons you state. I 100% agree with you. I disagree with Cameron's solution to this problem not his identification of the problem.

We have seen the very encouraging signs (as long as it is really executed as such) of an open primary for london mayor, and we have seen how this worked for Fiona Bruce who later weas voted the best gold-list candidate here.

All I am saying is that for a candidate to reflect their community, the community should be involved in the selection.

It's not up to CCO or the associations to choose the right person. Let's repeat the success of Fiona Bruce's selection.

[Christina]

"All I am saying is that for a candidate to reflect their community, the community should be involved in the selection."

Chad, the association concerned has stated they will not choose an ethnic minority candidate, because they are in an area that is mainly white, and people won't vote for a Tory from an ethnic minority there.

That's the point, your primaries idea would ensure an ethnic minority candidate does not stand a chance, if the local association are right in what they say.

[Richard]

"This blog has, unfortunately, become a bit of a cheerleading squad up on top"

Not over the past few days it hasn't!

"Proponents of affirmative action will claim that a system is fair because it achieves equality of outcome as between groups, while ignoring the fact that it unfairly discriminates against individuals."

Agreed. People should be left alone to recruit who they want on whatever grounds they want. In some cases this may lead to unfair outcomes but I would rather we have freedom of association than centralised "thou shalt recruit according to how we say". If it is clear that an unsuitable candidate has been chosen then people won't vote for them. Simple as that.

[Richard]

"That's the point, your primaries idea would ensure an ethnic minority candidate does not stand a chance, if the local association are right in what they say."

But if that's what the local community want then who are you to say they can't have that? If a predominantly black community favoured black candidates I would consider it none of my business.

[Christina]

Here's the story

http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/men/news/s/210/210302_tory_in_race_storm.html

[True Blue]

Proponents of affirmative action will claim that a system is fair because it achieves equality of outcome as between groups, while ignoring the fact that it unfairly discriminates against individuals.

If the current system unfairly discriminates against individuals within certain groups, what is your alternative?

I'm glad the party has decided to impose the best and brightest hopes onto sclerotic constituency parties. The individuals selected will be of very high calibre, possibly higher than the candidates otherwise selected, but this way at least they get a chance.

I think it's fair to say that this is a policy commitment.

As for Chad's comment

There is no "right" number of women, disabled, ethnic minority, old Etonian, just the "best" person for the role.

I can tell you now that we certainly haven't got the right numbers now, and that despite changes elsewhere in society, doing nothing has not worked. There wasn't a single black face until 1987. We now have ... two MPs who are from minority groups. There are 15 in parliament. Putting a few diserving ethnic minority candidates into winnable seats is not going to hurt anyone.

I'd prefer it if this wasn't necessary, but it clearly is.

[Rick]

But if that's what the local community want then who are you to say they can't have that?

To some it is theoretical but I know of one constituency where 8 candidates stood and the only "European" name was a Lithuanian; there were 3 Hussains each from a different party, and several Iqbals etc.

The ethnically-White population felt disenfranchised and turnout was correspondingly low as they were faced with candidates backed by various family-factions and clans.

[Chad]

Chad, the association concerned has stated they will not choose an ethnic minority candidate, because they are in an area that is mainly white, and people won't vote for a Tory from an ethnic minority there.

Hi Christina,
I am proposing that a cross-section of the local community chooses the candidate, so this situation would not occur.

Your comment seems to support my plan for open primaries (as the candidate will reflect the local community) and oppose Cameron's a-list plan as that seeks to impose a candidate who is part of a "national mix" on a local constituency.

[Christina]

Richard wrote

"But if that's what the local community want then who are you to say they can't have that? If a predominantly black community favoured black candidates I would consider it none of my business."

Richard, I am arguing against Chad's assertions that Cameron is being racist with the A-list, and showing that Chad's 'non-racist' solution, can actually work as a smokescreen that allows racism.

I'm not arguing for any particular system, just trying to show how futile the racist accusations are.

The CP needs to have a proportion of candidates that reflect the numbers of ethnic minority people in this country, around 10%? More women too.

[Christina]

"am proposing that a cross-section of the local community chooses the candidate, so this situation would not occur."

Why not? If the community is 95% white people, then it isn't much of a cross-section in terms of ethnic mix.

If local people have told the local Tories that they won't vote for an ethnic minority candidate, as claimed, then they will do the same in the primaries on ethnic grounds.

[True Blue]

The ethnically-White population felt disenfranchised and turnout was correspondingly low as they were faced with candidates backed by various family-factions and clans.

And Rick puts forward an argument stating certain groups feel disenfranchised by not having any candidates from their ethnic background. The irony is palpable.

Which constituency was this by the way? Were the candidates chosen by the local association or parachuted in?

[True Blue]

If local people have told the local Tories that they won't vote for an ethnic minority candidate, as claimed, then they will do the same in the primaries on ethnic grounds.

..and this is known as pandering to racism.

"If racism gets us votes, let's do it." It's like not employing black bar staff because "it discourages paying customers." Anyone remember that?

[StayingTory]

This shows the real mentality of most Labour MPs when passinglefty describes Enterprise as "scumbags". The fact that their incomes comes either directly or indirectly from Enterprise is irrelevant; they treat business (especially SMEs) with contempt, tax them to the hilt and tie them up in red tape. Can we please get this lot out?

[Chad]

Chad's 'non-racist' solution, can actually work as a smokescreen that allows racism.

What rot! No-one can accuse an open primary of being a smokescreen for racism! Sure we can't control the thoughts of individual voters, but the whole point of involving a cross-section of the local community is to bring balance and equality.

Open Primaries do present one serious danger though, a diversity that is not being encouraged; the diversity of thought.

CCO will have little or no control over the person who is selected, and thus, this person is less likely to be "onside", a nodding dog.

[Richard]

"The CP needs to have a proportion of candidates that reflect the numbers of ethnic minority people in this country, around 10%? More women too."

This assumes that a white person is incapable of representing the interests of a black person. Why should they be any different because of skin colour? There is a stronger case to be made that Muslims may be best at representing their own religion because this is a matter of culture rather than colour.

"Richard, I am arguing against Chad's assertions that Cameron is being racist with the A-list, and showing that Chad's 'non-racist' solution, can actually work as a smokescreen that allows racism."

It is true that neither system is perfect, although insofar as Cameron's A List idea is more dictatorial I am inclined against it. At least in open primaries the (local) people would be able to decide. Under Cameron's plan a minority of Tories high up in the party would decide.

[passing leftie]

This shows the real mentality of most Labour MPs when passinglefty describes Enterprise as "scumbags".

The scumbags I'm talking about the fatcats at the top sucking the money out of everyone's pockets, and I'm talking about big corporations not SMEs. And I'm not a labour MP or a labour supporter. Under labour, the difference between the super rich and everbody else has expanded massively. A reward for enterprise is fine - but these massively disroportionate earnings, not tied to productivity are just greed, greed, greed. Corporate governance is a joke with non-executive directors scratching each others' backs and sticking two fingers up at the shareholders.

I can't imagine Cameron or any other Tory addressing this, though.

[Christina]

No, it isn't rot Chad. In a community where people have said they would never vote for a non-white candidate, an open primary would allow populist sentiment in the local community to ensure only a white person is chosen.

Bear in mind, that those people who tell the local Tories these things, are the ones most likely to attend an open primary.